# Ok…NOW I think Eve is dying **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [September 22, 2023, 4:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378 "2023-09-22T16:48:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Brun\_Warbear](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/brun_warbear/32/380353_2.png) [@Brun\_Warbear](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Brun_Warbear)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 12:28pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/165 "2023-10-13T12:28:38Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > if you could get WoW to render inside of calculator This isn’t actually even that far fetched. [13 things that prove that DOOM will run on literally anything | GamesRadar+](https://www.gamesradar.com/12-things-that-prove-that-doom-will-run-on-literally-anything/) I mean, I know Doom is not WoW but in principle there’s no particular technical limitation. ---
**Author:** ![Sakinamo\_Tsero](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sakinamo_tsero/32/390208_2.png) [@Sakinamo\_Tsero](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sakinamo_Tsero)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 2:36pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/166 "2023-10-13T14:36:24Z")
It has always been dying and its pretty much just run by multiboxers and bots for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Rail\_J\_kar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rail_j_kar/32/374429_2.png) [@Rail\_J\_kar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rail_J_kar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 4:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/167 "2023-10-13T16:32:38Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > Not sure what your point is. > > My “point” is that because its an entirely different engine, and more specifically an entirely separately installed application, that it can’;t be used by the EVE client at all, its like wondering if you could get WoW to render inside of calculator Why would you need to use the eve client? The account is shared with both games. So yeah, you’d have to load up vanguard to make use of those wis environments with your capsuleer characters. Obviously that’s not something that will be possible at launch, but it’s relatively low hanging fruit. ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 4:47pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/168 "2023-10-13T16:47:29Z")
> [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > So yeah, you’d have to load up vanguard to make use of those wis environments with your capsuleer characters. So it would be 100% worthless because it can’t interact with EVE, it would just be an entirely different game where you could only walk around in stations and do nothing else, so what would be its purpose? ---
**Author:** ![Rail\_J\_kar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rail_j_kar/32/374429_2.png) [@Rail\_J\_kar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rail_J_kar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 5:28pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/169 "2023-10-13T17:28:12Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > So it would be 100% worthless because it can’t interact with EVE That’s not the case at all. Anything you do in station would be linked to your eve character. So for example… if they changed the bounty system to where you had to take out a contract on a specific person, rather than anyone being able to get the bounty prize from anyone they kill that has a bounty. It could require you to go physically in person to the station to pick up the contract. Once you have the kill contract, you’d be able to make use of locator agent functionality while you’re in your ship hunting the other player. Any content that’s considered “off the books” or underground, could make use of the wis portion of station environments be the central hub for that content. Interaction between Vanguard and EVE players could be facilitated by station environments. But perhaps you’re talking about direct interaction, where you can shoot at each other. CCP does have that Gunjack code. One day, once sov gets integrated into vanguard, the defenders could make use of turrets on the station to both shoot incoming boarding vessels and EVE ships, if they’re close enough. One day, they could even have Valkyrie style fighters to defend stations (though I suppose that gameplay would have to be disabled once tidi went into effect.) Something similar to Infinity Battlescape gameplay. That would allow both EVE and Vanguard players to directly shoot each other. There’s unlimited potential for it, you just need a bit of imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Spacetramp\_Drago](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/spacetramp_drago/32/480922_2.png) [@Spacetramp\_Drago](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Spacetramp_Drago)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 5:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/170 "2023-10-13T17:40:18Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > So then detail what you think would need to be changed, if you’re so confident that it needs to be changed put your money where your mouth is CCP Fozzie.. ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 5:59pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/171 "2023-10-13T17:59:59Z")
> [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > That’s not the case at all. Anything you do in station would be linked to your eve character. And for that it would need to happen inside EVE, none of the external games affect TQ directly with your existing character, even vanguard will require a new vanguard character and not your capsuleer, if you want WIS in EVE it needs to happen within the EVE client And all the original issues with it actually not being worth it would apply > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > It could require you to go physically in person to the station to pick up the contract. Right, but why? what does this ADD to the game? why would anyone want to walk to a specific place inside a station to do something they should be able to do from a simple popup window? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Any content that’s considered “off the books” or underground, could make use of the wis portion of station environments be the central hub for that content. Like what, considering you cannot gate any content behind having to walk in a station for the people playing who are unable to run that portion of the game, so you will have to stick to only things you can do in the normal EVE client to avoid gating access to features > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > But perhaps you’re talking about direct interaction, where you can shoot at each other. CCP does have that Gunjack code. No i’m not talking about shooting each other in the station > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > One day, once sov gets integrated into vanguard, the defenders could make use of turrets on the station to both shoot incoming boarding vessels and EVE ships, if they’re close enough. Citadels can already do this without vanguard even existing, and much like above, you can’t gate a defence feature specifically behind people playing a different game > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Something similar to Infinity Battlescape gameplay. That would allow both EVE and Vanguard players to directly shoot each other. Yeah they can do that by logging in to EVE to shoot each other, you’re not really going to be able to do much to a dread in space as a meatbag on the planet lol ---
**Author:** ![Rail\_J\_kar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rail_j_kar/32/374429_2.png) [@Rail\_J\_kar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rail_J_kar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 7:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/172 "2023-10-13T19:09:37Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > if you want WIS in EVE it needs to happen within the EVE client No, it doesn’t. > [@Cypherous](#): > > even vanguard will require a new vanguard character and not your capsuleer, But it wouldn’t HAVE to would it? I mean you made this argument yourself. > [@Cypherous](#): > > So no, its not because they “can’t” access the database, its because they don’t _want_ it to, its a deliberate choice not a technical limitation Personally I think they do have some sort of technical limitation or game design reason for it. But at the very least, it is theoretically possible. As long as players keep pushing for more integration, they’ll do it eventually. > [@Cypherous](#): > > none of the external games affect TQ directly with your existing character Dust had a minor amount of impact, but Vanguard will have even more through the corruption mechanic in fw. And the current fw is being beta tested to be pushed out to be used in all of sov space. Which is proof there will be some database integration… we just need to push for more of it. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > It could require you to go physically in person to the station to pick up the contract. > > Right, but why? what does this ADD to the game? why would anyone want to walk to a specific place inside a station to do something they should be able to do from a simple popup window? For the same reason it’s a bad idea to have bounties automatically pay out to anyone who kills a bounty target. Having a few hoops to jump through will make the profession a bit more worthwhile for people to engage in since it wont deplete the bounties through normal pvp. > [@Cypherous](#): > > considering you cannot gate any content behind having to walk in a station for the people playing who are unable to run that portion of the game You do make a point about gating access, however the client is free… and it all exists on the same account. The only thing that would prevent someone from accessing the feature is if they don’t have a gpu that will handle dx12 (since that’s what ue5 uses) or if they didn’t have enough hd space on their computer. For the majority of people. it shouldn’t be an issue though. You can effectively consider the two games like they’re one game, with two separate clients. > [@Cypherous](#): > > Citadels can already do this without vanguard even existing Sure citadels can defend themselves, and the proposal would just give more defensive options. > [@Cypherous](#): > > you can’t gate a defence feature specifically behind people playing a different game It’s not really a separate game, just a different way to play it. Just like vanguard will potentially allow the capture of various structures (rather than blowing them up,) the game mode could also potentially allow for more defensive options. In the future, if you want your organization to be successful, you’ll likely need both Vanguard and EVE players. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > Something similar to Infinity Battlescape gameplay. That would allow both EVE and Vanguard players to directly shoot each other. > > Yeah they can do that by logging in to EVE to shoot each other As I told Altara, If someone wants to play a shooter, they’re not going to play EVE as it is currently. Giving them the option to play in a way they enjoy, will allow them to play in the universe with thousands of other people, and interact with them in a way that’s never been done in an fps. > [@Cypherous](#): > > you’re not really going to be able to do much to a dread in space as a meatbag on the planet lol Not true. I believe it was the eve forever video, where a dust merc activated a weapon system on the surface of a planet to target a dread in space. Obviously that dream never came to fruition, but it certainly could in the future. And even if they don’t allow planet based doomsday weapons and artillery, there’s also the option of the Valkyrie style fighter gameplay I mentioned before. There’s no need to be so rigid in your thought process. Just because CCP isn’t going full tilt with the database integration now, doesn’t mean they can’t slowly implement features that are fully integrated at a later date. ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 7:26pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/173 "2023-10-13T19:26:11Z")
> [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > No, it doesn’t. I mean, it does if you want it to be part of EVE, given that CCP won’t even let vanguard access capsuleer data they \aren’t going to let a WIS app do it, especially given how limited and pointless said app would be and that it would also have to lock your EVE character in place > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > But it wouldn’t HAVE to would it? I mean you made this argument yourself. I agree that it SHOULDN’T need one, however CCP have stated that it WILL, so while i will continue to call it a terrible move i will have to accept the current design goals > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Personally I think they do have some sort of technical limitation or game design reason for it. But at the very least, it is theoretically possible. As long as players keep pushing for more integration, they’ll do it eventually. Its 100% possible, i can already use SSO to get your character name and details and i don’t even work for CCP, they could completely manage it and are deliberately choosing not to > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Dust had a minor amount of impact Dust is also dead, i’m referencing the current and future games they have lined up > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > but Vanguard will have even more through the corruption mechanic in fw. From what i remember of the keynote, corruption will be EVE related not vanguard related, its more about the pirate FW that is being enabled on TQ in the next expansion > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > And the current fw is being beta tested to be pushed out to be used in all of sov space. Based on what information? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Which is proof there will be some database integration… I mean i’ve seen no evidence of what you’re claiming in the first instance > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > For the same reason it’s a bad idea to have bounties automatically pay out to anyone who kills a bounty target. Having a few hoops to jump through will make the profession a bit more worthwhile for people to engage in since it wont deplete the bounties through normal pvp. Adding hoops to jump through doesn’t ADD to the game, its a net negative to the experience, you should never be aiming to add tedium to something that already exists > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > You do make a point about gating access, however the client is free… Cool and is the hardware required to run it also free? Because if not it doesn’t matter that the game is free, if you can’t run it you can’t run it regardless of what it costs to obtain > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Sure citadels can defend themselves, and the proposal would just give more defensive options. Right but you can’t gate that extra defence behind a different game > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > It’s not really a separate game It is at this point an entirely different game, what you do in one will for the most part have zero impact on TQ, its designed to be played pretty much on its own, it has its own missions and will no doubt support its own PvP queues given the game will be PvPvE and will basically just be destiny with a different paintjob by the looks of it > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > As I told Altara, If someone wants to play a shooter, they’re not going to play EVE as it is currently. Giving them the option to play in a way they enjoy, will allow them to play in the universe with thousands of other people, and interact with them in a way that’s never been done in an fps. Right but there won’t be a way to interact, thats the whole point here, the 2 games will run entirely on their own and have no real direct interaction, even when it came to dust the only interaction was a player using a specific module at a specific time which triggered an effect on that games map, there was no way for the bunnies to influence what was going on in space, they were just free killmails to be generated > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > There’s no need to be so rigid in your thought process. Its not being rigid its called being realistic, given the state of the game i don’t see it happening the way you hope it will ---
**Author:** ![Rail\_J\_kar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rail_j_kar/32/374429_2.png) [@Rail\_J\_kar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rail_J_kar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 8:56pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/174 "2023-10-13T20:56:05Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > but Vanguard will have even more through the corruption mechanic in fw. > > From what i remember of the keynote, corruption will be EVE related not vanguard related, its more about the pirate FW that is being enabled on TQ in the next expansion This is incorrect. While pirate fw will influence corruption, Vanguard will also impact corruption. There’s more information about those systems in the havoc and vanguard panels. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/b/f/9/bf97e82ff81338a501171ac4b5b71a4eefec387c.jpeg) If you want to watch that portion of the video… it’s roughly at the [53 minute mark](https://youtu.be/SyM-toR8VT4?t=3193) You also have to understand Vanguard is in a pre-alpha state, it wont be for a while until the integration takes place. This may be in part why they’re forcing a separate character to start with since the guy in the presentation said they’re being careful not to break things. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > And the current fw is being beta tested to be pushed out to be used in all of sov space. > > Based on what information? It was in the Havoc panel I believe. Confirming fw was going to be pushed out to sov space eventually. There’s been other sources that have been hinting at this for well over a year, but the panel in question confirmed it. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/a/e/b/aeb3becfdbcba7129514b0d85bfbdcc30c42203c.jpeg) This initial push will just have the current sov system and potentially the corruption system too impact sov. Eventually though, you should fully expect Vanguard to impact these elements as well. > [@Cypherous](#): > > Cool and is the hardware required to run it also free? > > Because if not it doesn’t matter that the game is free, if you can’t run it you can’t run it regardless of what it costs to obtain This is already a factor in EVE since CCP allows people to multibox. If your system can’t handle it, or you can’t afford multiple omega accounts, you’re already at a disadvantage. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > Sure citadels can defend themselves, and the proposal would just give more defensive options. > > Right but you can’t gate that extra defence behind a different game Why not? If CCP allows attacking EVE structures from the vanguard client, why can’t they also allow defending from the same client? You really need to stop thinking of these two clients as separate games… because they’re not. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > There’s no need to be so rigid in your thought process. > > Its not being rigid its called being realistic, given the state of the game i don’t see it happening the way you hope it will Perhaps CCP will fall on their faces and wont make the integration happen… but it’s part of the design philosophy. There’s a reason why they keep saying the two titles will be connected “from day one.” It’s marketing speech trying to get it through to people that these two entities will be one game, living on the same server. ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 9:54pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/175 "2023-10-13T21:54:11Z")
> [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > There’s more information about those systems in the havoc and vanguard panels. Still looks like its more EVE related because of the havoc logo, either way its not a direct influence there isn’t going to be any cross game combat > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > You also have to understand Vanguard is in a pre-alpha state Yes currently, but they plan to get it going pretty soon > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > This may be in part why they’re forcing a separate character to start with since the guy in the presentation said they’re being careful not to break things. No they are keeping it separate so they can shelve the game if it doesn’t do well without having to worry about legacy data in the database > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > It was in the Havoc panel I believe. Confirming fw was going to be pushed out to sov space eventually. If i had $1 for each time a fanfest slide never resulted in an actual feature lol Still waiting on those forward operating bases to replace POS CCP 😛 > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > This is already a factor in EVE since CCP allows people to multibox. Right, but what does that have to do with people not being able to run vanguard? you do know not everyone multiboxes right? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > If your system can’t handle it, or you can’t afford multiple omega accounts, you’re already at a disadvantage. Sure, but there is a difference between “being at a disadvantage” and “not being able to access a feature at all because you own a potato PC” > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Why not? Because why should defending your space in EVE be gated behind having people play an entirely different game you might have zero interest in? It would be like having your civ 6 game outcome be decided by a bunch of CoD players, they won’t be allowed to have a significant impact on what happens to TQ > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > If CCP allows attacking EVE structures from the vanguard client, why can’t they also allow defending from the same client? Because if they are smart, they won’t, you’re forgetting a fundamental problem here and that is that FPS gameplay is reliant on ping, EVE is far more forgiving of people on opposite sides of the planet, an FPS isn’t going to be that forgiving and will massively favour people who live closest to the server and basically make it so certain parts of the world can never really defend that part of the game, have you ever tried to play a competitive FPS with 200ping? do you really want to lose a citadel because your team has a 200 ping disadvantage to people who are playing the same FPS at sub 20 ping? The logistics just don’t work, there is a reason dust had no actual impact on TQ, the scales are just off entirely, not to mention TiDi basically renders it impossible to do any kind of real time FPS combat on any scale in EVE battles > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > You really need to stop thinking of these two clients as separate games… because they’re not. Except, they are, there may be a small amount of links between them but they will, for all intents and purposes be two entirely separate games, just because its logistically impossible for them to always be able to do things together > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > There’s a reason why they keep saying the two titles will be connected “from day one.” “connected” doesn’t really mean much, dust was “connected” to EVE from day 1, its just that that connection was basically limited to having dust bunnies join your corp and for ship pilots to technically provide orbital bombardments, although again its not like there was any real interaction there outside of the ship shooting a planet that enabled the dust server to fire a laser at the match > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > It’s marketing speech trying to get it through to people that these two entities will be one game, living on the same server. Its marketing speech to make you think its going to be more than it actually is, lets not forget, this is CCP and we have seen this happen all before, we know what to realistically expect from this 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Rail\_J\_kar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rail_j_kar/32/374429_2.png) [@Rail\_J\_kar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rail_J_kar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 10:59pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/176 "2023-10-13T22:59:45Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > Still looks like its more EVE related You can’t really say that, because there was barely any information given about it. Just that both “games” will affect the same mechanic. > [@Cypherous](#): > > there isn’t going to be any cross game combat At launch, certainly. Unless they change things. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > You also have to understand Vanguard is in a pre-alpha state > > Yes currently, but they plan to get it going pretty soon The first play tests will be in November / December which means the earliest you could potentially expect the game to launch would be the spring of '25 during that fanfest, and that’s if they’ve been able to get a ton of work done on the game before the announcement a few weeks ago. Considering CCP is looking to hire map creators, and character designers (to create in game art assets) we’re probably at that stage. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > This may be in part why they’re forcing a separate character to start with since the guy in the presentation said they’re being careful not to break things. > > No they are keeping it separate so they can shelve the game Maybe, but you’re making assumptions. > [@Cypherous](#): > > legacy data in the database Is that not directly in line with what I said about being careful not to break things? > [@Cypherous](#): > > forward operating bases to replace POS CCP 😛 CCP can’t touch the pos code without making a huge mess. It was tried and didn’t work. so you’ll be waiting on that for a long time, until they manage to replace the code base… and potentially until after they switch to python 3. > [@Cypherous](#): > > you do know not everyone multiboxes right? > [@Cypherous](#): > > Sure, but there is a difference between “being at a disadvantage” and “not being able to access a feature at all because you own a potato PC” There are features in game that you’re effectively locked out of if you can’t multibox or have friends to run the content with. Requiring dx12 for some features isn’t out the the realm of possibility. And who knows, by the time Vanguard launches, it might be a moot point, because EVE itself may require dx12. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > Why not? > > Because why should defending your space in EVE be gated behind having people play an entirely different game you might have zero interest in? It’s not a separate game. I’ll keep saying this. Sov warfare will become a multi client feature. > [@Cypherous](#): > > It would be like having your civ 6 game outcome be decided by a bunch of CoD players That sounds awesome. > [@Cypherous](#): > > FPS gameplay is reliant on ping Sounds like a challenge to overcome. The easiest would be to disperse local servers around the world, and have the defenders choose which servers they wish to host their defensive matches on. > [@Cypherous](#): > > TiDi basically renders it impossible to do any kind of real time FPS combat on any scale in EVE battles Correct, you wouldn’t be able to do fps combat in a tidi situation. Doesn’t mean it would be impossible in non tidi situations. Or have your fps stuff happen on a physically separate server, but still impact the battle in other ways (ie: fire tidi affected planet or station bound weapon arrays within the Vanguard game space.) > [@Cypherous](#): > > there may be a small amount of links between them … “connected” doesn’t really mean much … marketing speech to make you think its going to be more than it actually is What we know so far isn’t much, but we can infer a lot about it. Vanguard matches will affect corruption… and the corruption mechanic (and fw as a whole) will eventually be pushed out to sov space. We also know they want this frame work they’re working on to affect player structures. This all points to a slow integration. The more popular the game mode, and the more support they get for integration, the more likely it will be to be done. ---
**Author:** ![Sienna\_Massilia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sienna_massilia/32/390388_2.png) [@Sienna\_Massilia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sienna_Massilia)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 11:01pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/177 "2023-10-13T23:01:47Z")
Well, EVE will be dead for me sooner than later if I can’t get that Launcher working 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 11:19pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/178 "2023-10-13T23:19:05Z")
> [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > CCP can’t touch the pos code without making a huge mess. It was tried and didn’t work. You don’t need to touch POS code, you just create a new structure and then disable POS from being sold or anchored, code remains intact > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > There are features in game that you’re effectively locked out of if you can’t multibox or have friends to run the content with. Right, but friends doesn’t resolve the issues with your proposed uses of WIS > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > It’s not a separate game. I’ll keep saying this. Sov warfare will become a multi client feature. You can keep saying it, but that doesn’t change that its not going to work the way you think it will, you’re expecting some sort of grand real time battle with forces in both games at the same time, you’re actually just going to end up with some sort of delayed ticks or progress towards a bar rather than some grand battle, like i said real time doesn’t work because of things like TiDi > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Sounds like a challenge to overcome. The easiest would be to disperse local servers around the world, and have the defenders choose which servers they wish to host their defensive matches on. Right and why do the defenders get to dictate server location? you’re handing one side a deliberate advantage, which doesn’t sound very fair, can’t really do regional servers for this it will end up having to be central like TQ > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Sounds like a challenge to overcome. Sounds like something you’re not really going to be able to overcome if you want things in real time, which is why things aren’t likely to happen in real time and you’ll just have a delayed progress towards things > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Correct, you wouldn’t be able to do fps combat in a tidi situation. Right and you need to assume any scenario could turn in to a TiDi situation, move too large a fleet in to the wrong system and you cause TiDi > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Or have your fps stuff happen on a physically separate server, but still impact the battle in other ways (ie: fire tidi affected planet or station bound weapon arrays within the Vanguard game space.) Right but you can’t really have it affect them due to the time difference, you could farm 50 battles in vanguard in the time it takes the server to process an hours worth of gameplay in a TiDi scenario, do you really want to have that many turrets fire just because they were unaffected? The other option is to basically make the vanguard matches worthless beyond a certain point because TQ needs to catch up, which is not an ideal scenario either > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > What we know so far isn’t much, but we can infer a lot about it. Vanguard matches will affect corruption… and the corruption mechanic (and fw as a whole) will eventually be pushed out to sov space. Yup and if its anything like any of the other mechanics CCP has ever done, its going to be a progress bar in a system, its going to be “connected” but not likely in any meaningful way ---
**Author:** ![Rail\_J\_kar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rail_j_kar/32/374429_2.png) [@Rail\_J\_kar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rail_J_kar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2023, 11:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/179 "2023-10-13T23:48:52Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > You don’t need to touch POS code > [@Cypherous](#): > > then disable POS from being sold or anchored So… in other words, you have to touch pos code. I’m sure if what you said worked, they’d have done it that way. > [@Cypherous](#): > > Right and why do the defenders get to dictate server location? Why do defenders get to decide engagement windows? For the same reason. > [@Cypherous](#): > > you’re handing one side a deliberate advantage, which doesn’t sound very fair Defenders already have the advantage. It’s your asset to defend, you get the advantage. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > Or have your fps stuff happen on a physically separate server, but still impact the battle in other ways (ie: fire tidi affected planet or station bound weapon arrays within the Vanguard game space.) > > Right but you can’t really have it affect them due to the time difference, you could farm 50 battles in vanguard in the time it takes the server to process an hours worth of gameplay in a TiDi scenario, do you really want to have that many turrets fire just because they were unaffected? No, the weapon array in vanguard would be tidi affected. So it would work just like a ship or station module. You activate the node and it has a cool down based on tidi principals and EVE game design balance. And you shouldn’t think of it as farming matches, but rather controlling a static location. Think more planetside 2 than something like cod. There may be objectives in that space that you capture and hold (similar to fw complexes) to move any of the bars you were talking about, but it wouldn’t require separate match based play. ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2023, 1:53pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/180 "2023-10-14T13:53:35Z")
> [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > So… in other words, you have to touch pos code. I’m sure if what you said worked, they’d have done it that way. No, you touch market and anchoring code, do you think everything to do with POS is in the same function? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Why do defenders get to decide engagement windows? For the same reason. Right, but there is a difference between dictating the time of the engagement and the server location for the engagement, as it stands they are still at the liberty of TQ’s location, they have the time advantage but not the ping advantage, if they were able to dictate the FPS servers location they would have a very distinct advantage in terms of latency and it would basically mean nobody could ever compete without living in that same geographic area While timezones exist it doesn’t always mean that the players active during those times actually lives in the areas covered by those timezones, i’m mostly awake during the USTZ but i live in the UK, should i be penalised for living in the UK just because the defenders are in the USA and get to have the FPS server over there instead? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > No, the weapon array in vanguard would be tidi affected. So it would work just like a ship or station module. You activate the node and it has a cool down based on tidi principals and EVE game design balance. So basically once per battle, because TiDi stretches out the actual battle time dramatically to if it were run in real time, so like i said, most of the battles taking place in the FPS would be ignored during TiDi as you would have to make sure the 2 matched up in terms of timing and you would be stuck waiting for the EVE simulation to proceed, which isn’t a good gameplay experience for the FPS players who would be left waiting around doing nothing for large periods of time > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > And you shouldn’t think of it as farming matches, but rather controlling a static location. Think more planetside 2 than something like cod Which again, doesn’t really work if you only need to hold it once per battle at which point nothing else you do has any consequence due to you having to wait for the TiDi section of the battle to catch up, and thats before you have to deal with what happens if the vanguards target and attack a ship but by the time their attack is actually scheduled to fire the enemy is no longer present as it died or warped off during the TiDi affected portion of the battle Like i get the concept sounds cool but the grim reality of it is that you can’t have the 2 working in realtime for the same battle, TiDi dictates the flow of the battle and the second TiDi starts you’re basically ruining the experience for the vanguards who now have massive delays in their progress taking effect ---
**Author:** ![Rail\_J\_kar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rail_j_kar/32/374429_2.png) [@Rail\_J\_kar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rail_J_kar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2023, 7:15am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/181 "2023-10-15T07:15:01Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > do you think everything to do with POS is in the same function? The only thing I really know about pos code, is that it’s scuffed. I would not be surprised if anchoring, unanchoring, market stuff, was all in the same function… along with other unrelated stuff like crimewatch (which is the main reason why they can’t just trash the code iirc.) > [@Cypherous](#): > > Right, but there is a difference between dictating the time of the engagement and the server location for the engagement Not really no. They both give a “distinct advantage.” More people means more damage. Tbh, the ping might have less of an impact than the engagement window. > [@Cypherous](#): > > should i be penalised for living in the UK just because the defenders are in the USA If you decide to attack their node, yes. Build your own structures, and you can defend them with uk servers. > [@Cypherous](#): > > So basically once per battle > [@Cypherous](#): > > doesn’t really work if you only need to hold it once per battle Again… don’t think of it as a cod match… but a static location. CCP’s presentation basically showed us we can stay on location for as long as we want… there’s no timer to leave. Granted that could change with other game modes, but that’s not what we know so far. > [@Cypherous](#): > > wait for the TiDi section of the battle to catch up … by the time their attack is actually scheduled to fire the enemy is no longer present as it died or warped off during the TiDi This really is no different than using the normal eve client during tidi. You activate modules and then wait for them to do their work. It’s just that it would be layered on top of fast paced fps action. So you can think of it more like a king of the hill type scenario. CCP could even code it so players wouldn’t have to wait around to fire the equipment… but merely have it be a capture the flag style game mode which automatically fires on targets when appropriate. IE: if you’re the defender, you go around trying to online automated subsystems, and if you’re the attacker, you go around trying to offline them. The “battle” on the station would last for as long as each side still has clones to throw into the battle… or they decide to leave. Since there’s no timer, it will last for as long as people want to fight. > [@Cypherous](#): > > the second TiDi starts you’re basically ruining the experience for the vanguards who now have massive delays in their progress taking effect With the proposal, tidi wouldn’t directly affect their own gameplay… only where the guns are shooting at ships in the eve client. And all that information can be displayed to the people in vanguard… letting them know if and when tidi is in effect… which will let them know why the station guns aren’t cycling faster. Vanguard players would have their own victory conditions of course. Defenders would want to destroy whatever the attackers are using to spawn clones into the station, whether those be boarding pods, or maybe landing craft in a hanger. The attackers would try to take over sections of the station until they overran the key portions of the station and caused it to flip control. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/2/1/9/219345ec6926f1a96989fc62306475bd0fce07ac.png) CCP could divide those separate sections into different “battles” / matches I suppose, if they need to conserve server / client resources, or they could do like a planetside type thing where the whole station is playable. That largely comes down to technical limitations. But yeah… Tidi doesn’t need to impact the actual vanguard play… other than the portions where they’re directly trying to interact with elements within the EVE Online game space. ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2023, 8:47am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/182 "2023-10-15T08:47:27Z")
> [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Not really no. Yes really, the advantage they give is extremely different, one lets them be online at the best time, the other would severely negatively impact the experience of any players not living in that geographic area And if you’re claiming ping has less of an advantage then you have clearly not played an FPS at 100 ping lol, because you’re talking about a huge difference in the quality of the match, getting killed behind cover constantly, your hits not registering at all, its insanely important to have pings be fair for all > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Again… don’t think of it as a cod match… but a static location. CCP’s presentation basically showed us we can stay on location for as long as we want… there’s no timer to leave. Granted that could change with other game modes, but that’s not what we know so far. Except i will, because the same applies regardless, in a TiDi situation you’re stuck waiting on a timer that you can’t do anything with because you’re waiting for the space battle to continue, and it basically will be “matches”, you’ll land on a planet, you’ll have an objective and you’ll leave when you’re done, did we not watch the same presentation at fanfest with them trying to exfiltrate at the end in order to actually get their objective? Because it won’t be people just sitting there for hours they will want to actually get their resources off-planet otherwise its a massive waste > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > This really is no different than using the normal eve client during tidi. You activate modules and then wait for them to do their work. It’s just that it would be layered on top of fast paced fps action. I’m going to assume you don’t actually play many FPS games, because if you did, you would realise how bad of an experience this would actually be for all involved Here is your scenario, you’re fighting to hold a space cannon on the ground, the battle above has progressed to the point that 99% TiDi is in effect, you secure the cannon and it shows it firing to you, now, because of the time delay involved you’ll now have to wait 20/30 minutes for that shot to register, meaning the cannon can’t effectively be used again until that point as it needs to wait for its cooldown relative to the TiDi battle going on above Which part of this do you think works in a “fast paced FPS action” experience? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Since there’s no timer Except there will have to by the nature of the game infact be a timer involved, not for the length of the match but for any effects that affect the space simulation as they have to, for the sake of balance, be tied together in your realtime battle scenario and for the shots to not be wasted on things that will no longer even be present at the time, which would make your shot actually result in being worthless which is a bad experience for all involved > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > With the proposal, tidi wouldn’t directly affect their own gameplay… only where the guns are shooting at ships in the eve client. And all that information can be displayed to the people in vanguard… letting them know if and when tidi is in effect… which will let them know why the station guns aren’t cycling faster. Right, and how do you think this doesn’t affect their own gameplay directly? they are there to participate in that battle and if their ability to participate is limited to once every 30 minutes they aren’t going to want to hang around waiting because it becomes too costly an experience for them, remember they need to leave the planet to obtain any resources they have collected > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > The attackers would try to take over sections of the station until they overran the key portions of the station and caused it to flip control. Yeah i don’t see that happening, remember nothing in EVE can rely on vanguard presence, it would only be able to help contribute to what would eventually be a TQ victory, like i get people love the concept of a multi-pronged attack where the attacking vanguards can sabotage things, but it just doesn’t work that way because its too frustrating a scenario for one side who will randomly lose access to things when they have no way to defend it directly, its going to be a progress bar based system because that is realistically the only way it works and it will mean the space based defenders can still counter without needing vanguards of their own Also, there is the issue of limited numbers of players in any given instance of vanguard, remember it won’t be like TQ where you can have 500 vs 500 people on the same map, you’ll have a much much smaller number of players, which basically eliminates any direct realtime interactions as you could end up with the defenders on an instance where they are uncontested and vice versa making for a poor gameplay loop aswell ---
**Author:** ![Rail\_J\_kar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rail_j_kar/32/374429_2.png) [@Rail\_J\_kar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rail_J_kar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2023, 9:35pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/183 "2023-10-15T21:35:13Z")
> [@Cypherous](#): > > the advantage they give is extremely different, one lets them be online at the best time, the other would severely negatively impact the experience of any players not living in that geographic area You and I are just going to disagree on this point. I think it’s not an issue, and you clearly do. It’s also a moot point, because it’s the only reasonable way to make a single shard server have impactful open world fps fighting. > [@Cypherous](#): > > you have clearly not played an FPS at 100 ping I have actually. 100-200 ping was pretty common back during the battlefield 2 days. I also had to deal with 5k ping spikes playing league of legends while using my neighbors wifi. Now that sucked. Also sucked getting those spikes while playing fps games and having it toss you off a building, but I put up with it because it was the only way to get my fix. > [@Cypherous](#): > > it basically will be “matches”, you’ll land on a planet, you’ll have an objective and you’ll leave when you’re done > [@Cypherous](#): > > they will want to actually get their resources off-planet otherwise its a massive waste The objective during a station / or ground base siege isn’t to get resources, but to capture infrastructure. So yes, they’ll leave, but only after the fighting is done. And like I said before, CCP could have a series of battles for various sections of the station if CCP needs to do that for technical limitations… or just to speed things up since multiple battles could happen at the same time. (ie: 5-10 50x50 battles vs 1 50x50 battle that covered the entire station.) > [@Cypherous](#): > > in a TiDi situation you’re stuck waiting on a timer that you can’t do anything with because you’re waiting for the space battle to continue > [@Cypherous](#): > > you’re fighting to hold a space cannon on the ground, the battle above has progressed to the point that 99% TiDi is in effect, you secure the cannon and it shows it firing to you, now, because of the time delay involved you’ll now have to wait 20/30 minutes for that shot to register, meaning the cannon can’t effectively be used again until that point as it needs to wait for its cooldown relative to the TiDi battle going on above Correct. Except that you’re not just “waiting for it to fire.” You’re also fighting the other Vanguard team. You could just complete the objectives on the ground / in station and force the other team out. If the defenders win, the station defenses stay online and fire as normal, and if the attackers win, the defenses that are linked to that section of the station go offline. > [@Cypherous](#): > > Which part of this do you think works in a “fast paced FPS action” experience? The vanguard game play. You do realize orbital bombardment in dust would have had these same constraints yes? It’s really no different except the shots are going in the other direction. The main difference is you were less likely to have to deal with tidi in dust because it wasn’t linked to sov. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > Since there’s no timer > > Except there will have to by the nature of the game infact be a timer involved, not for the length of the match… I was clearly speaking of the length of the match. Obviously everything related to tidi and module cooldowns / cycle timers would still be in effect. > [@Cypherous](#): > > how do you think this doesn’t affect their own gameplay directly? Because their direct gameplay is fighting other vanguard players. > [@Cypherous](#): > > they are there to participate in that battle and if their ability to participate is limited to once every 30 minutes they aren’t going to want to hang around waiting because it becomes too costly an experience for them assuming the once every 30 minute shot at an EVE player is even correct, that’s still only a periphery gameplay element. The main gameplay is shooting at other vanguard players and trying to achieve objectives in the space they’re inhabiting. > [@Cypherous](#): > > remember they need to leave the planet to obtain any resources they have collected Once again, station / ground base siege is about taking infrastructure, not gaining resources by farming npcs or clearing pve objectives. Also… they don’t necessarily need to leave the map to get resources in the normal gameplay mode. I’m not exactly certain how ccp plans to do this, but the beacon they showed could just be for resource extraction and then give the player the option to leave with the goods or stay for more objectives. > [@Cypherous](#): > > > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > > > The attackers would try to take over sections of the station until they overran the key portions of the station and caused it to flip control. > > Yeah i don’t see that happening, remember nothing in EVE can rely on vanguard presence, Entirely disagree. The entire point of cross platform play is to have an impact. The current structure mechanic is to blow up other structures by shooting it. Adding a vanguard capture mechanic not only makes the cross play more impactful, but it actually makes EVE Online a better game because there’s less structure grind. You’d still be able to shoot the station and blow it up, but this would give the option to capture these player structures in a way that isn’t just a mindless hp grind. > [@Cypherous](#): > > it just doesn’t work that way because its too frustrating You realize you’re playing EVE right? Making other people frustrated is part of the dna. > [@Cypherous](#): > > no way to defend it directly Sov war is already a multi faceted gameplay loop. There are many different avenues these wars get prosecuted, it’s not just the big battles slugging it out against each other. Allowing vanguard players to take part in that ecosystem is the obvious step to making both vanguard and EVE Online successful for the next decade. > [@Cypherous](#): > > its going to be a progress bar based system because that is realistically the only way it works That’ll work fine for their corruption mechanic and maybe system wide sov (ie: transplanting the fw system into sov like they’re planning to do,) but it’s not a satisfying way to deal with structure or planet side poi capture, since it’s not an immersive experience. > [@Cypherous](#): > > space based defenders can still counter without needing vanguards of their own While I do like the idea of space based assets being able to impact the vanguard battles (logistics, orbital bombardment, hacking, intel, ect.) expecting to win without bringing vanguards is silly. Would you expect to win a fleet fight without logistics cruisers / caps? Would you expect to win the fight without ewar? A good game of course works overtime to provide as many counter play options as possible, but there’s still a limit to what you can provide. And like I said previously, you can always just blow up the station instead of trying to capture it on the ground. And likewise, defenders can destroy the shipments of clones and other vanguard equipment while they’re still in space. So it’s not like there’s no counter, it’s just that you’ll be at a large disadvantage if you decide not to engage with an important part of the game. (Just like if you decided not to using logi or ewar.) > [@Cypherous](#): > > there is the issue of limited numbers of players in any given instance of vanguard This is a nonissue. Corps and alliances will bring as many people as the server tech will allow them. Even if the station fights were 10 v 10, it’s kind of a moot point. > [@Cypherous](#): > > you’ll have a much much smaller number of players, which basically eliminates any direct realtime interactions as you could end up with the defenders on an instance where they are uncontested and vice versa making for a poor gameplay loop aswell I’m not sure what you’re trying to say? That it would be a problem if the defenders or attackers didn’t show up to the fight? If one side doesn’t show, then give the win automatically to the other side. Easy. Sounds a lot better than having to grind through thousands of structure hp. These are already things people have to face in EVE, and it’s part of the mmo experience. I’m by no means saying the station capture mechanic would be the only gameplay option in vanguard. Obviously CCP is doing their pvevp stuff… and I imagine there will be a straight pvp match making mode at some point. It’s just a potential option to make the gameplay more meaningful, and ultimately successful. Because I firmly believe if CCP doesn’t lean into what makes EVE Online unique, then Vanguard will just be another fps clone in a vast sea of games. ---
**Author:** ![Cypherous](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypherous/32/499883_2.png) [@Cypherous](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypherous)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2023, 10:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378/184 "2023-10-15T22:31:03Z")
> [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > You and I are just going to disagree on this point. I think it’s not an issue, and you clearly do. So like i said, go play an FPS with 200 ping and you’ll be on the same page and agree with me, its not really a disagreement, its just a simple fact > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > It’s also a moot point, because it’s the only reasonable way to make a single shard server have impactful open world fps fighting. Only if your definition of impact is the only way, pushing bars is impactful and can be done, and is also likely the only way its going to be done > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > I have actually. 100-200 ping was pretty common back during the battlefield 2 days. I also had to deal with 5k ping spikes playing league of legends while using my neighbors wifi. Now that sucked. Also sucked getting those spikes while playing fps games and having it toss you off a building, but I put up with it because it was the only way to get my fix. Right, well in this case its not about getting your “fix” this will be to defend your own space or to attack others, so you will be forced to take part if you want to affect the system the way you would design it, so knowing that it sucks why would you force half of a battle to have to put up with that? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > The objective during a station / or ground base siege isn’t to get resources, but to capture infrastructure. So yes, they’ll leave, but only after the fighting is done. Thy won’t, if its anything like dust you’ll also have to pay ISK to replace equipment meaning you’re going to be hopping in and out to resupply and change kits > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > or just to speed things up since multiple battles could happen at the same time. (ie: 5-10 50x50 battles vs 1 50x50 battle that covered the entire station.) I don’t really see that being a viable option for defending anything important, it would work for pushing bars but not for realtime stuff > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Correct. Except that you’re not just “waiting for it to fire.” You’re also fighting the other Vanguard team. Right, but when you’re stuck waiting 30 minutes between objectives you’re not going to waste resources just fighting each other, you’ll spread out and wait and do other things while you wait for the cooldown > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > The vanguard game play. You do realize orbital bombardment in dust would have had these same constraints yes? Yes and the orbital bombardment system was terrible and i doubt many people even really used it that much due to how convoluted it was, it also wasn’t used to affect anything in space it was all about just shooting the bunnies > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > It’s really no different except the shots are going in the other direction. The main difference is you were less likely to have to deal with tidi in dust because it wasn’t linked to sov. Yup and TiDi is the issue and the thing that breaks the whole plan > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Obviously everything related to tidi and module cooldowns / cycle timers would still be in effect. Yup, so a 5 minute CD becomes drastically longer just because TiDi is effect in space, so you have to deal with seemingly randomly fluctuating timers > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Because their direct gameplay is fighting other vanguard players. Right, which is all it should focus on because thats pretty much the only way to really keep the gameplay fast paced, once you involve space and TiDi you start ruining the gaming experience > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > The main gameplay is shooting at other vanguard players and trying to achieve objectives in the space they’re inhabiting. Right, but outside of shooting the spaceships you’re not going to be doing anything when it comes to sov battles Remember, this is specifically marketed as a PvPvE game so shooting other vanguards is not the only thing you’ll be doing > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Once again, station / ground base siege is about taking infrastructure, not gaining resources by farming npcs or clearing pve objectives. Right, and taking infrastructure means interacting with capsuleers, but like i said its not going to happen the way you think it is because there would always need to be a way for pilots to prevent vanguard progress, so it IS going to be bar pushing because thats the only way it really works fairly > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Entirely disagree. The entire point of cross platform play is to have an impact. The current structure mechanic is to blow up other structures by shooting it. Adding a vanguard capture mechanic not only makes the cross play more impactful, but it actually makes EVE Online a better game because there’s less structure grind. Except it will still be a structure grind, you’re not going to have vanguards completely tip the outcome of a battle lol, at best its going to be a progress bar battle instead, which having taken part in the trig invasion, is actually far worse and you don’t want that lol But that is alas, about the only way its going to happen as its logistically not possible to have it be fair for all involved like it can with TQ due to the server ticks being as long as they are > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > You’d still be able to shoot the station and blow it up, but this would give the option to capture these player structures in a way that isn’t just a mindless hp grind. Yeah you’re not going to be getting structure capture > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > You realize you’re playing EVE right? Making other people frustrated is part of the dna. Right, but its frustrating because of the game, not because your ping is too high to actually participate, there is a massive difference > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > but it’s not a satisfying way to deal with structure or planet side poi capture, since it’s not an immersive experience. Thats fine because i don’t see structure happening at all > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > expecting to win without bringing vanguards is silly. And why is that, realistically vanguards couldn’t do anything because a battleship can just toasts entire armies in an instant, you’re realistically never going to be able to get anywhere near the battlefield in the first place lol The scales just don’t work > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > Would you expect to win a fleet fight without logistics cruisers / caps? Would you expect to win the fight without ewar? Not even remotely the same thing though, and yes you can win without logistics cruisers, it will be a hard battle but with enough numbers the logis don’t matter, i’ve seen lots of sleets just kiting around structures and other fleets, how do you think stealth bomber fleets work? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > defenders can destroy the shipments of clones and other vanguard equipment while they’re still in space. Which is always going to happen, warclone tech doesn’t function on a distance scale that large and absolutely toasting any and all warclone operations from orbit would be trivial, we could literally glass planets with ease, what makes you think warclones would ever actually stand a hope in hell of even being able to affect the battlefield in the same system? > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > This is a nonissue. Corps and alliances will bring as many people as the server tech will allow them. Even if the station fights were 10 v 10, it’s kind of a moot point. It kind of is, remember you said its not a CoD match, meaning its not 10 v10 its basically a free for all which means whichever group logs in the fastest wins by default because they can fill the instance, this issue is resolved with TiDi which allows more people to be in a single system at a time, it doesn’t work for FPS games so each VG instance will have a cap on the number of players that can be present, which is why realtime stuff doesn’t work and the realistic outcome is having to aggregate all actions and then push a bar lol > [@Rail\_J\_kar](#): > > I’m not sure what you’re trying to say? That it would be a problem if the defenders or attackers didn’t show up to the fight? Sure it would, because you would have 1 instance of the battle with only side A and another instance with only side B, meaning an essential stalemate, both sides can’t win and you can’t really scale the VG content infinitely and you would need to limit it My money is on a bar pushing mechanic because realistically its the only way to work it without breaking either game [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378.md?page=8) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ok-now-i-think-eve-is-dying/421378.md?page=10)